Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.225.93; envelope-from=rlwhite@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:53:17 -0600
From: Bob White <rlwhite@comcast.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel - Weights and Measures
Message-Id: <20060928195317.98f625c2.rlwhite@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-1425237@logan.com>
References: <list-1425237@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi George,

The following is quoted from "Measuring America" by Andro Linklater.
It's somewhat out of context, but will give some ideas.  You sound like
the kind of fellow who would enjoy reading this book. :)

"The basic weight was the troy pound in the Philadelphia Mint.  This
was scaled up by the ratio of 5,760 grains to 7000 grains to give the
avoirdupois pound, the actual standard being a brass weight marked with
a star, and consequently known as the "star" pound.  Both of these were
the same as the British imperial units, but instead of selecting the new
all-in-one British gallon, the U. S. Treasury decided that the
distinction between liquid and dry measures should be kept, initially
for customs duties and then for the standards themselves.  From the
grab bag of old definitions, Hassler's elaborate comparisons of
different measures determined the selection of Queen Anne's wine gallon
of 231 cubic inches for liquids, and for grains the Winchester bushel
of 2,150.42 cubic inches, each of which was smaller by about 17 percent
and 3 percent, respectively, than the new imperial gallon and bushel."

Among some of the startling revelations to me was that Thomas Jefferson
had tried to establish a decimal based weights and measures system in
the U. S., but was not successful.  It was quite different from the
French metric system we all know and love today.  

Quoting again:
"In less than 1,000 words, he then outlined the first scientifically
based, fully integrated, decimal system of weights and measures in the
world.  Its basic measure of length, derived from the second's rod, was
a foot, which would be divided into 10 inches.  A cube of rainwater,
whose sides were 1 decimal inch long, was to weigh 1 decimal ounce, and
10 of these ounces would make 1 pound.  The basic unit of capacity
would be the bushel, which was to measure 1 cubic foot, that is to say,
1,000 cubic inches.  Finally, the weight of the dollar was to be
adjusted so that it came to exactly 1 decimal ounce."

Bob W.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:43:03 +1000
"George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Paul or ANYONE,
> Could you tell me why the US gallon is different to the Imperial gallon - it has always bothered me. I've searched the conversions and found that the Imperial system has 20 oz to the pint and the US has 16 oz to the pint, and we all have 2 pints = 1 quart and 4 quarts gallon. It also seems there is a difference in the value of the ounce.
> 
> We both have 16 oz to the lb - I wonder if that had anything to do with some sort of EARLY rationalisation? 
> 
> I would really like to understand the reasoning behind this difference, there must be some sound reasoning behind wanting to change from what was THEN considered a universal 'Weights & Measures' system.
> 
> While your at it could someone tell me why Stone was dropped from the US weights system i.e. 14 lbs =1 Stone.
> 
> I just figure if I could just understand the reasoning behind these decisions and if they sound logical - I could better live with them, like I do with the difference in spelling. Not that I'm so great at spelling, in fact I used to get in all sorts of trouble by spelling things phonetically such as in the US system - but they belted that out of me, however I do understand the logic behind it. Now if I could just get a handle on  the weights issue!
> George ( down under)


-- 
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/